Jump to content

TwiceHorn

Full Members
  • Posts

    39362
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    2

Everything posted by TwiceHorn

  1. Also regarding an antitrust claim against SEC or any other conference. Generally, to prove an antitrust claim, you have to prove that the defendant has a monopoly/market power {usually to "set prices") or is dangerously close and actively monopolizing. That can be tricky as hell, but was super easy for the NCAA because literally every university competing in athletics was a member and participant. They could hardly argue that they didn't have monopoly power, but rather argued that their existence and competition rules were justified by the interest in preserving amateurism. SCOTUS ruled that that was an insufficient justification and here we are. SEC and other conferences are a collusion of a relatively tiny fraction of the institutions engaged in athletic competition, so are far less vulnerable to having their competition rules challenged on antitrust grounds no matter how negative the effects on athletes.
  2. In this post, MAD means mutually assured destruction, right? Informative post. Also it should probably be noted re: House that college athletes have a "claim" against their institution's revenue that is hard to quantify. NiL is but a relatively small portion of the revenue claim that stems or stemmed from a blatantly unfair practice by institutions of selling players NIL rights to EA and with jersey sales, among other things. So House tries to compromise an employer that wants to minimize the claim and an employee that will have great difficulties proving the claim - - not that they are due something for their contribution but how much. So players now have the right to monetize their own NIL as well as a more general claim to a portion of revenues collected by institutions. They are pretty independent.
  3. Ron does make an interesting point, though, regarding Facebook TOS. If you put much beyond links to ToT content, you're giving Facebook a license to use that content for its own purposes. Maybe you consider that beneficial in terms of promotion, but it is a bit scary if the content goes beyond personal and into the realm of actually creative and "for profit."
  4. My position is elaborated above, in the preceding pages. It appears that Zuckerberg was not subpoenaed in the Murthy litigation, nor was the sworn testimony by affidavit taken from any Facebook employee. It's actually somewhat difficult to determine exactly what evidence was presented to the court. When you're prosecuting a case against the government about what it did to Facebook, you'd think testimony from Facebook, if not Zuckerberg that yes, the government coerced us, would be highly relevant to that case. And you would get it if you could. This is speculation, but it's educated speculation and really just common sense. You claim the government did unto Facebook, who in turn did unto you. If you are serious about winning that case (as opposed to just being performative, which is always a possibility) you do your damndest to secure evidence from Facebook that the government did unto them. Further, the Murthy case was well-publicized, and if you were onerously put-upon by the government, you'd think you'd step up and say something about it, or, if it didn't happen as the plaintiffs said, you should probably pipe up and say so. Facebook could have even intervened in the case to help keep the government off its back or to vindicate the government. Yet, Zuckerberg and Facebook were notably silent all during that case. Now, you could argue that it was politically motivated not to harm (or assist) the Biden Administration, just like it is obviously politically motivated to curry favor with the Trump administration. But you can't have it both ways: that the truth is finally revealed to the Trump administration. But only one of those administrations is known for being petty and retaliatory, both in threat and actuality.
  5. I think "denounced" is the word you're looking for. Always de rigeur in repressive regimes.
  6. I'm reasonably certain we'll see something very like this during Trump's "Birthday at the Kremlin" parade.
  7. I never said it would make any difference, I just posited what might well happen. Guido and Ruckus playing the almond cookie game should have been your tip-off that maybe I wasn't entirely serious. As realistic as that probably is.
  8. Earlier, it was revealed that Vivek got catfished into some event with the OSU team. It was completely fake.
  9. Potentially at least for Drew Ensign. And, in analogous cases, namely criminal, due process violations result in dismissal of a case or setting aside a conviction, regardless of the guilt of the accused. So, conceivably, she could enjoin the parties before her from deporting anyone else. Or fashion some sort of similar remedy.
  10. So, I'm going to assume the district court is going to make some punitive orders that are going to more squarely frame the issues of whether the President's foreign relations and national security powers permit him to violate the 5th and 14th Amendments. The DC Circuit will affirm with some harsh words for Trump, and Roberts is going to have his long dark night of the soul, while Guido and Ruckus play the almond cookie game.
  11. And, it's going to cost a shit ton to fix all the shit they fuck up.
  12. I used to kind of like Subway, dating back to my days at Castilian when the offered menu was no bueno. Because I am an old, there was a Subway on the corner of 24th and San Antonio. YGIFs got me off the Subway train pretty effectively, but I'd probably still eat a BMT in a pinch, or ham n cheese. Now my first thought about pizza at Subway is "who dares wins," or loses as it were.
  13. Biden crime family!
  14. Yeah no. That's going to provoke ANOTHER constitutional crisis regarding the ability of the judiciary to hold executive officials in contempt.
  15. Yeah, I dunno. I read that as an attempt to backtrack from their previous judicial admission that he was removed in error. Certainly seems like a setup to try to sidestep the due process issue.
  16. So, what do you think? Trump urges him to make some kind of stand holding Abrego Garcia, or gets him released and returned out of the "goodness of his heart"?
  17. Sunday's status report was, uh, insufficient. https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69777799/64/abrego-garcia-v-noem/ Government's response to Abrego Garcia's motion for further relief. Pretty ludicrous. https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69777799/65/abrego-garcia-v-noem/ Some notable bullshit. Claims "facilitate" has a special meaning in immigration law with no citation. Claims that the agreement between ES and US is subject to attorney-client privilege or state secrets privilege. Which is going to be hard to do because the agreement was ostensibly reviewed, agreed to and executed by a foreign party. It does note, however, that Bukele is meeting with Trump today. It does a lot of saber rattling and jawboning, but falls short of explicitly stating it can't or won't return Abrego Garcia. Seems like it may be shaping up for Trump to return him but say it was some act of personal graciousness, not something the courts required or could require.
  18. Highly Respected Chairman!
  19. His main claim to fame is being the CEO or chairman or whatever of Cantor Fitzgerald, the bond trading outfit. For whatever reason, the bond traders I have encountered, including some friends, act more like boiler room "stockbrokers" than sophisticated traders. Lutnick does nothing to dispel this impression. He also is named inventor on a bunch of patents. I'd been meaning to look them up, and they're pretty shlocky internet business method things.
  20. Yeah, mid-season 500 teams have done a lot of damage at the end of the year.
  21. So, apparently Holman Jenkins at WSJ pretty much called for Trump's impeachment. https://www.msn.com/en-xl/news/other/it-s-already-in-the-cards-trump-impeachment-urged-by-wsj-editorial-board-member/ar-AA1CNpZi Interdasting.
  22. Exactly. Maximizing his value, but in a more traditional (not directly monetary, but monetary nonetheless) sense than seeking the biggest bag. But you yourself admit that once he began maximizing his value, he took the biggest bag or at least the biggest bag consistent with other objectives. What you're saying is that he's not a dbag and hasn't been a dbag about it. But you're not denying the essence of my post, which also said he wasn't a dbag. No one really can or should criticize maximizing value, or playing the game according to the rules. But how you play still matters. It's all degrees of the same thing. Immaleavin is maximizing his value, with emphasis apparently on the bag and not much else. He also bent or stretched the rules on the way in and is being a dbag about it or letting his Dad be a dbag for him.
  23. It's not nonsense. He sought to maximize his value, both financially and because he may not have started/played enough. There's a mercenary aspect to that. I'm not claiming he IS a mercenary or that it is unjustified. Guess this all goes to show you, if you're gonna chase the dollar, best not to be a dbag about it.
×
×
  • Create New...